Network Science Teaching Practice #1: Engaging in equitable studentstudent talk for how/why reasoning
Depthof
Explanation
JenniferRichards,JessicaThompson,KerrySooVonEsch,BethanySjoberg,AllysonKemp
UniversityofWashington
Asanetworkofmiddleandhighschoolsciencedepartmentteams,weareaimingtoimprovestudents’written
andspokenscientificexplanations,modelsandarguments.Oneofthediscoursepracticesschoolteamshave
namedandworkedonimprovingisequitabletalkforhowandwhyreasoning.Teamsofteachershavefoundthis
tobeparticularlyhelpfulpracticetofocusonatthebeginningofaschoolyearasawaytoincreasestudent
participationinclassroomconversations.
Workingtheoryof
studentlearning
Workingtheoryofstudentlearning
Followingisandoverviewofthepracticeandhowitsupportsstudents
reasoning.Itisimportanttotalkaboutyourtheoryofhowstudents
learnwithyourteamofteachers,sothatyoucandevelopacommon
understandingoftheseideas,thecorecomponentsofthepractice,
Prac[ce/Core
Prac[cal
andpracticalmeasurementsthatindicateimprovement.
components
measurements
Structuredtalkprovidesastructureforpairsandsmallgroupstohave
verbalexchangesinclassrooms.Oftenwegivestudentstimetotalkin“turn-and-talk”routinesbutthisisnotthe
sameasensuringthatallstudentshaveachancetoairouttheirideasorpracticebecomingfluentwithscientific
termsandconcepts.Instructuredtalkstudentsaregivenrolesandequaltimefortalking.Structuringtalkin
scienceclassroomsmeansthatstudentsneedspecificopportunitiestoreasonwithhowandwhyanatural
phenomenonisoccurring—thishelpselevatetherigorofthestudenttalk.ForexampleinBiologystudentsmight
usestructuredtalktodescribewhyalabinvestigationturnedoutthewaythatitdid.Therubricbelowprovidesan
exampleofthewhat-how-whyexplanationframeworkthatagroupofteachersweworkedwithdevelopedfora
cellularrespirationinvestigationinwhichstudentswereaskedinastructuredtalkto“Explainwhyyouwouldsee
anincreaseinrespirationafterexercise.”IntheinvestigationstudentsbreathedintoaBromothymolBlue(BTB)
solutionasadirectindicatorofcarbondioxideoutputandanindirectmeasureofglucosebeingconvertedto
energy.Thisrubrichelpedteachersanticipatewhattheymighthearfromstudents.
What
o Studentdescribeswhat
happened.
o Studentdescribes,summarizes,or
restatesapatternortrendindata
withoutmakingaconnectiontoany
unobservable/theoretical
components.
1–AmbitiousScienceTeaching©2015
How
o Studentdescribeshowor
partialwhysomething
happened.
o Studentaddresses
unobservable/theoretical
componentstangentially.
Why
o Studentexplainswhysomethinghappened.
o Studentcantraceafullcausalstoryforwhya
phenomenonoccurred.
o Studentusespowerfulscienceideasthathave
unobservable/theoreticalcomponents(like
kineticmoleculartheory)toexplainobservable
events.
EXAMPLEexplanationforcellular
respirationinvestigation
TheBromothymolBluechanged
colorafterexercisebecausethe
bodyexhaledmorecarbondioxide
ascomparedtowhenthebodyis
stationary.
Whenexercisingthebody
requiresmoreoxygen.As
oxygenintakeincreasessodoes
thecarbondioxideoutput.
Whenexercisingthebodyrequiresmoreoxygen
whichistakenfromthelungstomusclecells(via
thecirculatorysystemanddiffusion).Thecellsuse
theoxygentobreakdownglucoseintoenergyand
carbondioxide.Musclesusetheenergytodowork
andthecarbon
dioxidediffusesinto
thebloodandthen
thelungsandis
exhaled.Cellular
respirationhappens
atafasterratewhen
apersonis
exercising. Teachersalsowantedtohavestudentsconnectideasaboutcellularrespirationtoequilibrium;theyalsoused
structuredtalktoaskstudents:“Howandwhydoesyourbodyreturntoarestingrateafterbeingatanelevated
rateintermsofgasexchangeandbreathingrate?Howmightthisbedifferentforapersoningoodshapeversusa
personoutofshape?”
Whyisstructuringtalkinscienceclassroomsimportant?
Talk–foundationaltoscienceasadiscipline:Scientificknowledgedoesnotcomeunproblematicallyfromthe
naturalworld,butratherisbuiltandrefinedovertimeasscientistscommunicatewitheachother.Asnotedinthe
frameworkunderpinningtheNextGenerationScienceStandards,“scienceisfundamentallyasocialenterprise,and
scientificknowledgeadvancesthroughcollaborationandinthecontextofasocialsystemwithwell-developed
norms”(NRC,2012,p.27).Scientistsregularlycommunicatetheirfindingsandideaswitheachotherandengagein
questioningandcritiquetoensurethattheexplanationsputforthbestaccountfortheevidenceknownatthe
time.
Talk–tosupportstudentlearninginscience:Inlinewiththeunderstandingthattalkisfoundationaltoscience,
numerouspolicyandresearchdocumentsinscienceeducationhaveagreedthatthelearningofscienceneedsto
begroundedinitsdiscourseandpractices(e.g.,Duschl,2008;Ford&Forman,2006;NRC,2012).Studentslearn
keyscientificconceptsandpracticesinthecontextofcollaboratingtodeveloprobustexplanationsofscientific
phenomenaandbeingpressedtosupportclaimswithevidence(Driver,Newton,&Osborne,2000)andengagein
mechanisticreasoning(Russ,Scherr,Hammer,&Mikeska,2008).Thesetypesoftalkarenotnaturallyoccurringin
classrooms—theyneedtobedesignedfor.Furthermore,studiesoncollaborationandtalkmoregenerallyhave
demonstratedthatpeersmayprovideeachotherwithmutualhelpwhentheyare“equalknowledgepartners”
workingonasharedtasktogether(Donato,1994;Gibbons,2002;Mercer,1995),andthatitiskeytokeepthe
topicofconversationchallengingwhilemakingtheroutineforinteractingwitheachotherexplicit(Clay&Cazden,
1992;vanLier,2001).RecentfindingsfromKuhn(2015)indicatethatinteractingwithopposingideasor
perspectivessupportsdeeperindividuallearning,inpartbecauseit“holdsone’sownpositiontothelight”(p.50),
requiringmetacognitivereflectionthatmaynototherwiseoccur.
Talk–tomakeallstudents’thinkingvisible:Supportingstudentsinequitablesciencetalkensuresthatallstudents’
ideasareheardandvalued,byboththeteacherandtheirpeers.Fromtheteacher’sstandpoint,attendingto
students’ideasiscentraltoformativeassessment(Black&Wiliam,1998;Levin,Hammer,&Coffey,2009),
enablingtheteachertomakeinstructionaldecisionsandadaptationsthatbuildonstudentthinkingmoving
forward.Studentsalsoneedtobeabletoaccesseachother’sthinking,asconsideringandinteractingwithvaried
ideasinthescienceclassroomenhanceseveryone’slearning(Rosebery,Ogonowski,DiSchino,&Warren,2010).
Talk–tomitigatepervasivepowerdynamics:Focusingonequityintalkcanrenegotiatepowerdynamicsatplayin
classrooms,wherestudentswithperceivedsocialandintellectualcapitaloftendominate.Recurringroutinesfor
talkcandisruptthesedynamicsbycreatinganewsharedsetofexpectationsandnormswithintheclassroom
community(Michaels,O’Connor,Hall,&Resnick,2010).Accompanyingtheseroutinesmustbeprofoundrespect
2–AmbitiousScienceTeaching©2015
forallstudents’contributions;“forparticipation…tobeanexpectationforallstudents(notjustthosewhoare
goodatittobeginwith),wemustpresumeintelligence”(Michaelsetal.,p.39).
Talk–forELsupport:Finally,authenticandsupportivetalkopportunitiesprovideallstudents–especiallyEL
students–withrelevantcontextstogrowintheiruseofacademiclanguage.Takingasocially-orientedviewof
secondlanguageacquisition,thetalkopportunitiesthemselvesareopportunitiesforlanguageuse,andthey
providecriticalaccesstoexamplesoflanguagefunctionsthatareusedinanalyticaltaskslikemakingrevisionstoa
model(Lee,Quinn,&Valdes,2013).
References
Black,P.,&Wiliam,D.(1998).Insidetheblackbox:Raisingstandardsthroughclassroomassessment.PhiDelta
Kappan,80(2),139–148.
Clay,M.,&Cazden,C.(1992).AVygotskianinterpretationofreadingrecovery.InL.C.Moll(Ed.),Vygotskyand
education:Instructionalimplicationsandapplicationsofsocio-historicalpsychology(pp.206-222).New
York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Donato,R.,1994.Collectivescaffoldinginsecondlanguagelearning.InJ.P.LantolfandG.Appel,eds.Vygotskian
approachestosecondlanguageresearch.Norwood,NJ:Albex,33-56.
Driver,R.,Newton,P.,&Osborne,J.(2000).Establishingthenormsofscientificargumentationinclassrooms.
ScienceEducation,84(3),287–312.
Duschl,R.(2008).Chapter8:Scienceeducationinthree-partharmony:Balancingconceptual,epistemic,andsocial
learninggoals.ReviewofResearchinEducation,32,268–291.
Ford,M.J.,&Forman,E.A.(2006).Redefiningdisciplinarylearninginclassroomcontexts.ReviewofResearchin
Education,30(SpecialIssueonRethinkingLearning:WhatCountsasLearningandWhatLearningCounts),
1–32.
Gibbons,P.(2002).Scaffoldinglanguage,scaffoldinglearning:TeachingESLchildreninthemainstreamclassroom.
PortsmouthUS:Heinemann.
Kuhn,D.(2015).Thinkingtogetherandalone.EducationalResearcher,44(1),46–53.
Lee,O.,Quinn,H.,&Valdes,G.(2013).ScienceandlanguageforEnglishlanguagelearnersinrelationtoNext
GenerationScienceStandardsandwithimplicationsforCommonCoreStateStandardsforEnglish
languageartsandmathematics.EducationalResearcher,42(4),223–233.
Levin,D.M.,Hammer,D.,&Coffey,J.E.(2009).Noviceteachers’attentiontostudentthinking.JournalofTeacher
Education,60(2),142–154.
Mercer,N.(1995).Theguidedconstructionofknowledge:Talkamongstteachersandlearners.Clevedon:
MultilingualMatters.
Michaels,S.,O’Connor,M.C.,Hall,M.W.,&Resnick,L.B.(2010).AccountableTalkSourcebook:ForClassroom
ConversationthatWorks.Pittsburgh,PA:UniversityofPittsburgh.
NRC(NationalResearchCouncil).(2012).AframeworkforK-12scienceeducation:Practices,crosscuttingconcepts,
andcoreideas.Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.
Rosebery,A.S.,Ogonowski,M.,DiSchino,M.,&Warren,B.(2010).“Thecoattrapsallyourbodyheat”:
Heterogeneityasfundamentaltolearning.JournaloftheLearningSciences,19,322–357.
Russ,R.S.,Scherr,R.E.,Hammer,D.,&Mikeska,J.(2008).Recognizingmechanisticreasoninginstudentscientific
inquiry:Aframeworkfordiscourseanalysisdevelopedfromphilosophyofscience.ScienceEducation,
92(3),499–525.
vanLier,L.(2001).Constraintsandresourcesinclassroomtalk.InC.Candlin&N.Mercer(Eds.),Englishlanguage
teachinginitsocialcontexts(pp.90–107).London:Routledge.
3–AmbitiousScienceTeaching©2015
1
2
CoreComponentsofthePractice
Asanetworkofmiddleandhighschoolsciencedepartmentteams,
Workingtheoryof
weareaimingtoimprovestudents’writtenandspokenscientific
studentlearning
explanations,modelsandarguments.Oneofthediscoursepractices
schoolteamshavenamedandworkedonimprovingisequitabletalk
forhowandwhyreasoning.Followingisandoverviewofthe
practiceandthecorecomponentsofthepractice.Itisimportantto
talkwithyourteamandwatchvideoofthispracticesothatyoucan
Prac[ce/Core
Prac[cal
components
measurements
bestcollectivelytrythepracticeandco-inquireintoquestionsabout
underwhatconditionsdoesthepracticeworkbestandforwhom?
Structuredtalkisusedtoaddressissueofequityandrigorinclassroomtalk.Youmayhavenoticedthatsome
studentsparticipatemorethanotherstudentsinsubstantivesciencetalk–andELstudentsinparticulartendto
participatelessoftenthanotherstudentsorthatstudentsarelesslikelytoparticipateinmorechallengingforms
ofscientificdiscourse(e.g.,respectfullydisagreeingwithanidea,askingeachotherprobingquestions,etc.).We
hypothesizethatstructuredtalkwill1)supportmoreequitableparticipationinsubstantivesciencetalkand2)
scaffoldparticipationinmorechallengingformsoftalk–bothofwhichwillimproveaccessandsense-makingby
morestudents,leadingtoimprovedscientificexplanations.
Hereisaflowchartteachersandresearchershavedevelopedtospecifythepracticeofstructuredtalkforhowand
whyreasoning.
Early attempts may require substantial
modeling and scaffolding.
Start here:
Frame the content
Plan how/why
Give students
to be discussed and
Have students
question for
private
the purpose of the
form A/B pairs
students to
think/write time
talk with students
consider
A and B
reverse
roles
Student B silently listens
to understand, then
revoices A’s ideas without
judging, adapting, or
commenting on the
correctness of ideas (use
sentence stems/table tents)
Student A
clarifies as
needed
Next rounds of A/B talk, ask
partners to
-describe similarities/ differences
-agree or disagree with ideas
-provide evidence to support ideas
Student A explains his/her
ideas through scientific
reasoning, representations,
claims, explanation, and
evidence
Scaffold pairs in
sharing wholegroup
Structuredtalkforhowandwhyreasoningismorethanjustaskingstudentstoturn-and-talk.Belowarefournonnegotiablesthathelpdefinetheprinciplesunderlyingthepractice:
• Talkturnsarestructuredandspecificrolesareexplicitforstudents
• Structuredtalkinscienceasksstudentstoextendbeyond“whatlevel”explanations
• Eachstudentisrequiredtosharehisorherownthinking
4–AmbitiousScienceTeaching©2015
•
Talkisopen-endedandencouragesstudentstosharemultipleresponses
NextRoundsofTalkteamsofteachersinthenetworkhaveconsidered/tried:
• Identifyingsimilaritiesanddifferences:Afterprovidingexplanationsstudentsaregivenadditionaltimein
pairstodiscusshowtheirideasaresimilartoanddifferentfromeachother’s.
• Providingevidenceforexplanations(Chinook):Afterprovidingexplanationsstudentsaskeachother
questions,topresseachother’sthinkingdeeper.Theyaskeachothertoprovideevidencethatsupports
anidea,ortousedevidencefromonelab/activity/scenariotoapplytoanotherscenario,etc.
• Buildingonorchallengingideas(Chinook,Evergreen,Highline):Afterprovidingexplanationsstudentsare
givenadditionaltimeinpairstoexplainwhytheyagreeordisagreewitheachother’sideas.Theymayadd
ontoorchallengeanideawithevidence,orprovideanalternativeexplanation.
• Structuringtalkacrosspartners/groups(Evergreen,Renton):Afterdoingturnsofstructuredtalkinpairs,
thesameA/Bstructureisusedtohaveconversationsacrosspairs.Rentonteachersaddedawritten
componenttostructuredtalksothatonepairofstudentscouldseewhatanotherdiscussed:
Date:________Question:
A–WhatIthought(silent)
B–Listening-Whatmypartnersaid
C–Whatmygroupagreedon(groupdiscussion-talkaboutyourgroupresponsetothequestionandbackupyour
reasoningforwhy)
SampleprotocolusedwithstudentsfromChinook(reprintincluded
attheendofthisdocumentà
Eachoftheseextensionsisasmalltestofasmallchangeteachers
havedonewiththepractice.Theycomefromquestionsteachers
wrestedwithwhenimplementingthepractice.Hereisalistof
questionswehaveseenteacherswrestlewith:
• Howcanweintroducethisprotocoltostudentsforthefirst
time?Aresentencestemshelpful?
• Howcanwebestsupportstudentsinpressingeachother
fordeeperexplanations?Usingevidence?Questioningone
another?Takingrisksandtakingeachotherseriously?
Beingflexibleintheirthinking?
• DoELstudentsneedanextrapresstoexpresstheir
thinkingandnotparaphraseothers?Whatshouldwe
expect/howcanwesupportdifferentlanguageproficiency
levelsinstructuredtalk?
• Whendoweencouragestudentstouseeverydaylanguage
andwhenacademiclanguage?
• Duringwhatpartofaunitorparticularlessondoesthis
structureworkbest?Howoftenshoulditbeincorporated?
Dostudents“graduate”fromthestructure?
• Whatistheconnectionbetweentalkandwriting?
5–AmbitiousScienceTeaching©2015
HighlineHighSchoollaminateddeskprotocol
th th
5 /6 STEMAcademyTableTentstosupportactivelistening
6–AmbitiousScienceTeaching©2015
Practicalmeasurements
Workingtheoryof
studentlearning
Asanetworkofmiddleandhighschoolsciencedepartmentteams,
weareaimingtoimprovestudents’writtenandspokenscientific
explanations,modelsandarguments.Oneofthediscoursepractices
schoolteamshavenamedandworkedonimprovingisequitabletalk
forhowandwhyreasoning.Followingisanoverviewofthepractical
Prac[ce/Core
Prac[cal
measuresteachersandcoachesusetoinquireintothepractice,the
components
measurements
conditionsunderwhichthepracticeworksbestandforwhom?
Structuredtalkisusedtoaddressissueofequityandrigorinclassroomtalk.Thereareseveralwaysteacherscan
studythispracticeandsystematicallycollectimprovementdata.
Exitticket.Teachersusethefollowingexitticketwiththispractice.Itisbesttousetheexitticketrightaftera
lessonwithstructuredtalkforhowandwhyreasoning.Thiscanbeusedforashortperiodoftime(2weeks)
intenselytoseeifstudents’begintoexperiencethepractice
differently,orusedacrossalongerperiodoftime(forexample
surveyingstudentstwiceineachunitofinstructionacrossaschool
year).
Youwillneedtohaveconversationswithstudentsaboutwhateach
oftheitemsmeansothatstudentscanbegintounderstandwhat,
forexample,“disagreeing”means.Thiswillhelpyoutrustthedata
youreceivebackfromstudents.Alsosharingthisdatawithstudents
cansendthemessagethattheseitemsareimportantfora
thoughtfulandproductiveclassroomculture.
StudentExitTicket
1.Question(s)relatedtothecontentoftheday’slesson.Adaptable:Somehaveused“Describeonethingthatyou
understandbetterordifferentlyaftertalkingwithyourclassmate(s).”
2.Whenyoutalkedwithyourclassmate(s),whichofthefollowingdidyoudo?(checkALLthatapply)
o Isharedmyidea
o Iaddedontoaclassmate’sidea
o IsharedanideaIwasn’tsureabout
o IexplainedwhyIdisagreedwithaclassmate’s
o Ilistenedtoaclassmate’sidea
idea
o Irepeatedorrevoicedaclassmate’sideato
o Iusedscientificevidencetosupportmyidea
makesureIunderstooditcorrectly
o Iusedasentencestemtoexplainmyidea
o Idescribedsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetween
o Ichangedmyideaaftertalkingwithmy
myandmyclassmate’sideas
classmate(s)
o Iaskedaclassmateaquestion
o Other__________________________________
o IexplainedwhyIagreedwithaclassmate’sidea
3.Whatwentwellinyourdiscussion?Whatdoyouthinkcouldhavegonebetter?(We’relookingtoimprovetalk
inclass,sohonestfeedbackwillhelpusall!)
DataSnapTool.Thedatasnaptoolonthenextfewpagesisaplanningandreflectiontoolforindividualteachers
touseorteachersworkingwithcoaches.ThetoolismodeledoffofaPDSA(Plan-DO-Study-Act)cycleusedin
improvementscience.
7–AmbitiousScienceTeaching©2015
EQUITABLESCIENCETALKDATASNAPTOOL
Name_________________________________Date_______________ClassPeriod____________
Sciencelessontopic_____________________________________________________________________
PLANthelesson:
5)PLANyourquestion(s):
1)Whatisthepurposeofthetalkplannedforthislesson?
2)What,ifanything,areyouchangingaboutthetalk
opportunitiesfromlasttime?Whatdoyouhopethese
changeswilldo?
ANTICIPATEwhatyoumighthearinstudentreasoningat
differentlevels:
What:
3)Whoistryingthepractice?
o Teacher
o Teacher+Coach
How:
o Teacher+Coach+Colleagues
4)Howoftenhavestudentsengagedinthiskindoftalkin
yourclass?
Why:
o Thisisthefirsttime
o Triedit1-2timesbefore
o Triedit3-5timesbefore
o Thisisdoneregularlyinmyclass1-2x/week
o Thisisdoneregularlyinmyclass3-5x/week
o Wepracticethiskindoftalkdaily
DOthelesson:Considerthepracticesused,andcollecttalkdata.
6)Whichnon-negotiableaspectsofequitablesciencetalkwereinplayinthelesson?
o Talkturnsarestructuredandspecificrolesareexplicitforstudents
o Structuredtalkinscienceasksstudentstoextendbeyond“whatlevel”explanations
o Eachstudentisrequiredtosharetheirownthinking
o Talkisopen-endedandencouragesstudentstosharemultipleresponses
7)Whichofthefollowingideasfromthenetworkwereinplayinthislesson?(checkallthatapplyandaddanynewones)
Revisingmodels
o Preparefortheworkofmodeling
Prepareacausal,evidence-basedexplanationofthecentralphenomenon,gothroughthe
modelingprocessyourselfbeforeyouaskstudentstodoso
o Pressstudentstoward“how”and“why”
Giveexamples/exemplarsofsolidexplanations,providespaceandconventionsonthemodelfor
incorporatingexplanatory(howandwhy)ideasandevidenceaswellasquestionsandtasksthat
prompthow/whywriting,developback-pocketquestionstopushstudentstowards
comprehensivehowandwhyexplanations*,createstrongconnectionsbetweentheentrytask
andthelesson(framethelessoninthewhyorfocusstudentsonanalyzingorcomparingand
contrastingpartsoftheirmodels),encouragestudentstomovebackandforthbetweenthe
whatandhow/whyduringmodelrevision,givestudents“thewhat”***
o Engagestudentsinconnectingideas
Provideaccesstomaterialsfrompreviousactivitiesandpromptstohelpstudentsremember
scienceideas,askstudentstouseevidenceintheirmodels*,returntothespecificphenomenon
underconsideration*,usedifferentrepresentationsofaphenomenontobringobservablesand
unobservablestogether,providestudentswithopportunitiestojuxtaposeideas*,askstudents
toapplyideastoanewscenario*
8|AMBITIOUSSCIENCETEACHING©2015
Evaluating/usingevidence
o Helpstudentsrecognizeevidence,hypotheses,and
distinguishamongthem
Identifyandelevatedifferentstudent-generated
hypothesesthroughfocuseddiscussion,provideevidence
forstudentstouseinbriefwrittenform(whatwe’ve
called“evidencecards”)*,clarifywhatcountsasevidence
o Usestructuresthathelpstudentsevaluateevidencein
relationtohypothesesanduseevidenceinexplanations
Useawritingformatthatemphasizesevidence(e.g.,CER
structured,TIED,etc.),provideexplanationsentence
framesasstartingpoints,useworksheetsthathelp
studentsorganizehowhypothesesandpiecesofevidence
relatetoeachother*,useasummarytableforthe
phenomenon**
o Framehypothesesandexplanationsaschangeableinthe
faceofevidence
Givestudentsexplicitpermissiontochangetheir
o
o
o
Focusstudentsonkeyscienceideas
Createanexplanationchecklist*****,clarifyimportantideasthroughtargetedjust-in-time
instruction,havestudentsengagewithsciencetextsanduseideasfromreadings
Havestudentstrackhowtheirthinkinghaschangedovertime
Highlightrevisedexplanationsontheirmodels
Provideaccesstomodelingforallstudents
Createsharedexperiencesforthemodel,makedrawingandwritingconventionsformodels
explicit(arrows,zoom-ins,labelingmolecules,etc.)*,ensurethemodelhasmultipleaccess
pointsandpathstocompletion(e.g.,somestudentsmaytakeonthewholemodel,whereas
othersmayfocusonaparticularpart),engageinsciencetheaterfor“unobservables,”give
studentstimetotalkbeforewriting,makestudentsexpertsonparticularpartsofthemodel,use
a“story”formattomakewritinganexplanationmoreaccessible
Supportingequitablestudent-studenttalkforhow/whyreasoning
o Scaffoldtalknormsintheclassroom
Provideandengagestudentsinusingsentencestemsfordifferentkindsofsciencetalk(e.g.,
askingquestions,agreeingordisagreeing–postonwall,handoutlaminatedcards,etc.),
developclassnormsforstudentslisteningtoeachother’sideas*,modelthekindofconversation
youexpect**,usestructuredtalktopracticecertainkindsoftalk,allowstudentstoleverage
debate-orienteddiscourse
o Createaccessible,meaningfulsciencecontextsforstudentstoworktogether
Createandrootconversationinsharedexperiences,askopen-endedquestions,havestudents
workonajointmodel,launchwithmultiplechoicequestions*orsteppingstonestowardthe
mainwork,keepthetalkanchoredinauthenticscience,limittalktimeforlessmeatyquestions
o Provideadequateprocessing/sharingtime
Groupstudentsaccordingtoprocessingtime,givestudentsprivatethink/writetimepriorto
talking,chunkworkintomanageablesegments*,useatimertomoderateturns*,haveoptions
for“fastfinishers”
o Structureparticipationinpartnertalk,smallgroups,andwhole-classshare-out
PARTNER/GROUP:Whenstudentsworkinpairs,haveonestudenttalkandtheotherrecord,
thenswitch,sharedirectionsandengagestudentsinastructuredtalkprotocolandexplainwhy
you’reusingit*
SHARE-OUT:Havestudentssharetheirpartner’sidea*,havestudentsshareanddiscusstheir
drawingswiththeclass*,createapublicrecordofsharedideasusingstudents’names**(and
withoutevaluatingtheideas),requirestudentstowritetheirinitialideasandhowtheirideas
changedinpreparationforsharing,intentionallysequencetheshare-out,haveonegroupshare
andlimitothergroupstoagreeing/disagreeing
o Havestudentsreflectontheirengagementintalk
Analyzegoodvideotapedconversationstogether,engagestudentsinself-monitoringor
providingfeedback
hypotheses*ortoedit/mergehypothesesbasedon
evidence
Provideaccesstoevaluating/usingevidenceforall
students
Letstudentschoosewhichhypothesestoinvestigate,
havestudentsworktogetheronsmallchunks(e.g.,a
singleevidencecardatatime),displayevidenceand
hypothesespublicly,givestudentsmanipulativeswhen
weighinghypotheses*andvisualsupportsforevidence
andhypotheses,invitestudentstoincludeexperiences
frompastactivitiesandtheirownlives
o
Supportinglanguagedevelopment
o Scaffoldacademicreadingandwriting
Supportphenomenon-relatedvocabularydevelopment
(e.g.,livingwordwall),includevisualizationsand
manipulativeswithexplanationsandcomplextasks,
modelhowtobuildsentenceswithsentence
fragments/words,createsentenceframesforparticular
tasks,providesomewrittenpiecessostudentsfocustheir
writingonthemostimportantcognitivework,usetext
cardswithphotosandparallelstructuretohelpstudents
findrelevantinformationintext
o IdentifyandplansupportforELstudents
Differentiatequestionsfordifferentlevels,intentionally
pairstudentstosupportlanguageuseanddevelopment,
allowstudentstoconferwithpartnersbeforesharing,
pre-selectstudentstoshareandletthemknowsothey
canpractice/prepare
o Encouragemultiplelanguageuse
Provideorhavestudentswritematerialsintheir
st
nd
language*,use1 and2 languageswithpartners*
LearningsfromACE,Cascade,Chinook,CollegePlace,Evergreen,Highline,Rainier,andRenton
8)What-How-WhyData
What:
Whatmightthis
soundliketoday?
Student1:
o intermediateEL
o advancedEL
o notEL
How:
Why:
Studentdescribeswhat
happened.Studentdescribes,
summarizes,orrestatesa
patternortrendindata
withoutmakingaconnection
toanyunobservable/
theoreticalcomponents.
Studentdescribeshowor
partialwhysomething
happened.Student
addressesunobservable/
theoreticalcomponents
tangentially.
Studentexplainswhysomethinghappened.Student
cantraceacausalstoryforwhyaphenomenon
occurredoraskquestionsatthislevel.Studentuses
importantscienceideasthathave
unobservable/theoreticalcomponentstoexplain
observableevents.
9|AMBITIOUSSCIENCETEACHING©2015
Student2:
o intermediateEL
o advancedEL
o notEL
Student3:
o intermediateEL o advancedEL
o notEL
Student4:
o intermediateEL o advancedEL
o notEL
STUDYthelesson:
9)Whatdidyoulearnfromthedata?
10)Howwelldidthetalkservetheintendedpurpose?Whateffectsdidanychangeshave?Weretheyasexpected?
ACT
11)Whatmightyoutrynexttimetobettersupportstudents?(Arethereanyideasyoucouldusetoimprovethetalk
opportunities?)Whatnewquestionscameup?
10|AMBITIOUSSCIENCETEACHING©2015
CASESTUDY:Learningsfromteamsofteachersinthenetwork
Workingtheoryof
studentlearning
Inthiscasestudywedescribehowthreeschools,workingonthesame
practiceinquiredintothepracticeandsupportedstudentlearning.They
examinedtheconditionsforthepracticeofequitabletalkforhowand
whyreasoningbycollectingandanalyzingdataandreflectingontheir
assumptionsabouthowstudentslearn.
Prac[ce/Core
Prac[cal
components
measurements
Chinook:Modifyingthestructuredtalkprotocoltosupportstudentsin
changinghypotheses
Problemofpractice
Thisyear,teachersatChinookMiddleSchoolhavebeensupportingstudentsinusingstructuredtalktohelpthem
engageinricherreasoningtoconstructandreviseevidence-basedexplanations.Foroverayear,teachershad
investedinhelpingstudentstouseevidencetochooseamongmultiplestudent-generatedexplanationsfor
scientificphenomena.Attheteam’sFebruarystudioday,teachersengagedstudentsinastructuredtalkprotocol
designedtosupporttheirreasoningregardingmultiplehypothesesinagivenunit.Teacherscollecteddatafrom
studentsbothabouttheirscientificthinkingandabouttheirself-reportedbehaviors,andtheynoticedthat
studentsveryrarelyreportedonchangingtheirthinkingduringclass,acriticalpracticeinworkingwithmultiple
hypotheses.
%ofstudentsreporTngacTvity
ChinookStudioReportedTalkAcTvity
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Smallchange
Teachersdecidedinaclassafewweekslatertousedamodifiedstructuredtalkprotocol(seebelow)thatexplicitly
pushedstudentstosharetheirreasoningintalkwithoneanotherANDtoincludesomeindividualwritingbefore
andafterthestructuredtalkthataskedstudentstofocusonanychangesintheirthinking.
Whatworked?Whatdidwelearn?(Howdoweknow?)
Inthisclasswiththemodifiedstructuredtalkprotocol,wedidNOTmeasurestudent-reportedchangesinthinking
(somethingwelaterlearnedisusuallyhigherthanthepercentofstudentswhochangetheirhypothesesfromthe
beginningofclasstotheend).Whatwedidinvestigatewasactualhypothesesreportedbystudentsatthe
beginningofclasscomparedtoattheendofclass.
11|AMBITIOUSSCIENCETEACHING©2015
Wefoundthatstudentschangedtheirhypothesesfromthebeginningtotheendofclassroughly25%ofthetime
across7classesand2teachers.Overall,studentstendedtomovefromalesssupported(and“lesscorrect”)
hypothesistoamoresupported(andmore“correct”)one.Theoneexceptionwasoneclassinwhichstudentshad
adifferentinterpretationofoneofthehypothesesthatwasmadepublicandcausedstudentstoshifttowardsthis
hypotheses.
ChangingHypotheses
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Ini[ally"correct"hypothesis0
End-of-class"correct"
hypothesis0
ChangeinHypothesis0
ChangeFROM"correct"
hypothesis0
ChangeTO"correct"hypothesis
0
Forwhom?
Wefoundthisshiftinstudentthinkinginallclasses,includingthosewithhigherpercentagesofspecialneedsand
ELLstudents.However,thechangeinoneofthehigherspecialneeds/ELLclasseswaslowerthaninsomeofthe
otherclasses.Wealsofoundthatoneteacher’sclasses,inwhichtherewasmoreexplicittalkfromtheteacher
aboutchanging,showedhigherratesofchange.Anditwasinthatteacher’sclassthatthestudentsshifted
towardsamore“incorrect”hypothesiswhenpublicdiscussionofferedadifferentinterpretationofthat
explanation.
Underwhatconditions?
Theconditionsforthesechangeswerecomplexandincludedchangesinteacherpresentationofwork,changesto
thestructuredtalkprotocol(althoughweobservedthatstudentsdidnotentirelyadheretothechangedprotocol
andwerealittlelooseinitsimplementation),andadditionofmoremetacognitivewritingbothbeforeandafter
thetalk.
Wonderingsandnextsteps
Teacherswonderedwhetherpublicdiscussionscouldbetooleadingamongstudentthinking(basedonthe
disproportionateshiftawayfromthemoresupportedhypothesisinoneclassperiod).Theyalsowonderedabout
howtopushthestudentsfurtherintodeepertalkabouttheirreasoningandhowstructuredtalkmayormaynot
helpthat.Andtheywonderedaboutwhattypesofwritingandreflectionwouldbestsupportstudentabilityto
reasonmoredeeplyandbeopentochangesinthatreasoningovertime.
TeachersengagedintwomoreroundsofstructuredtalkchangesinMarchandApriltoinvestigatethismore
thoroughly.Theycontinuedtoadjustthetalkprotocol,theclassroominstruction/messagingaroundchangingof
thinking,andopportunitiestowriteand/oridentifytheirinterpretationofthebest-supportedhypothesis.Self-
12|AMBITIOUSSCIENCETEACHING©2015
reportedchangesinthinkingcontinuedtoincrease(from~30%inFebruary,to~44%inlateMarch,to~60%in
April).AndbyApril,nearly60%ofstudentswereshowingchangesintheirhypothesisselectionattheendofa
class(comparedtojustunder30%inmid-March).
Teacherscontinuedtowonderabouthowtogetstudentstobemoreexplicitabouttheirreasoningandabout
changesotherthanthetalkprotocolthatcouldsupportthis.
ModifiedstructuredtalkprotocolappliedinMarch2015
PREWRITE: Students write
independently their response to what
will be the main question for discussion.
Questions might be something like:
• Describe how one piece of
evidence helps to answer the
essential question and/or driving
question (phenomenon).
Partner A tells Partner B his/her
idea/answer based on an activity,
reading, or experiment we did in class
(evidence).
“Today I saw (evidence) . This
supports/refutes my hypothesis that
_________________ because
______________”
Partner B identifies the evidence used
by Partner A.
“I hear you saying that your evidence is
_____.”
“The reasoning that connects your
evidence to the hypothesis is ___.” OR
“can you explain your reasoning with
more details?”
Partner B asks Partner A to explain
their reasoning for how that evidence
connects to the answer with more
details.
Partner A answers the question.
Partner B responds by saying, “That is
similar to my idea in that ____, AND my
idea is different because ____.”
Students write about how they have
added to and/or changed their initial
ideas.
13|AMBITIOUSSCIENCETEACHING©2015
Evergreen:Comparingthekindsoftalkoccurringundertwoconditions
AtanEvergreenstudiodayinMay2015,wedecidedtocollectdataonthe
kindsoftalkstudentsengagedinundertwoconditions:
• Structuredtalkopportunitiesdesignedtohelpstudents
morefullyarticulatetheiragreementordisagreement
withapartner’sidea
• Groupworktimewhenstudentswereworkingonjointworksheets
Thegraphbelowshowstheresultsfromoneclassperiod:
100%
%ofstudentsengaging
90%
80%
70%
70%
65%
60%
50% 50%
50%
40%
30%
Structuredtalk
35%
30%
20%
35%
Work[me
10%
10%
0%
Agree/Disagree
AddOn
Ques[on
FlexibleThinking
Weinterpretedtheredcolumnstobemorerepresentativeofthestudents’naturaldiscoursepatterns,andwe
sawthatwewereabletoshiftthesepatternsbyprovidingexplicitinstructionsandpromptstofocusonagreeing
anddisagreeingduringstructuredtalk.Thisdemonstratedthatstructuredtalksupportedstudentengagementin
particularkindsoftalk–includingkindsoftalkthatstudentswerelessnaturallyinclinedtoward.
However,intheotherclasswetaughtthesameday,wesawlessofeachkindoftalkduringstructuredtalkthan
duringworktime.Thisraisedquestionsforusabouttheeffectivenessofstructuredtalk,andforwhom?(For
instance,wedidnottrackwhotalkedduringstructuredtalk,worktime,orboth,butteachersreportedthatsome
studentsonlytalkedduringstructuredtalk.)Wealsowonderedifthestructuredtalkopportunitiessupported
deeperworktimetalk,whichwecouldexploreinthefuture.
Highline:Focusingonchallengingandchangingideas
Problemofpractice
Thisyear,teachersatHighlineHighSchoolhavecontinuedworktheybeganattheendoflastschoolyear—using
structuredtalktohelpstudentsengagemoredeeplywithreasoningaboutevidence.Lastspring,theteachers
constructedaprotocoltohelpencourageeachstudenttobothshareandlistentodifferentideasaboutparticular
questionstheywereaskedtoconsiderduringclass.Teachersweregenerallyhappywithstudentshaving
opportunitiestotalk,buttheywerestillnotseeingthedepthofevolutionofideasandbuildingoneachother’s
thinkingthattheyhadhopedfor.Sothisfall,teachersdecidedtoinvestigatemoredeeplytoseewhatsortsoftalk
activitystudentsreportedengagingin.Theycollecteddatafromover200studentsinclassesoffivedifferent
teachersandfoundthatthetwolowestreportedactivitiesweredisagreeingwithapartner’sideaandchanging
14|AMBITIOUSSCIENCETEACHING©2015
theirownideas.Recognizingtheneedforstudentstoevolvetheirthinking,teachersputsomeintentionalefforts
intohelpingstudentstorecognizetheimportanceofbeingabletochangetheirownandtheirpartner’sthinking
overthecourseofaunitofstudy.
HighlineHSNov/Dec2014ExitTicketStudent
ReportedTalkAcTviTes
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Smallchange
Teachersthisyearexploredavarietyofwaystocouplestructuredtalkwithwritingfocusedontheuseofevidence
andassociatedreasoning.InastudiodayinFebruary,oneteacherfirstgavestudentsaverystructured
claim/evidence/reasoningsheettouseafterepisodesoftalk.Shecontinuedtoworkonwaystocouplestructured
writingwiththestructuredtalkovertime,andendedupwithasheetthataskedstudentstodrawrepresentations
oftheirpartner’sideasandtoshowhowtheirownideashadchanged.Shecollectedexitticketdataafewmore
timesoverthecourseofthiswork.Additionally,anotherteacherindependentlyworkedonusingwritingduring
thecourseofstructuredtalktohelpstudentsbetterprepareandchangetheirideasbeforeandafterdiscussion.In
mostcases,teacherscoupledthesemodificationswithinstructionstostudentsthatchangingtheirthinkingand
questioningpartner’sideaswereimportantthingstodo.
Whatworked?Whatdidwelearn?(Howdoweknow?)
Inlookingatjustoneofthefirstteacher’sclassesovertime,wefoundanetincreaseinbothchallengingpartner’s
ideasandchangingtheirownideas.Wealsosawsignificantwrittenresponsessubmittedbystudentsonthe
writtenwork.Notethatintheseconddatapoint,thestructuredwritingdidnotyetaskthestudentstodescribe
changesintheirthinking,butthatchangewasinplaceforthethirddatapoint.
15|AMBITIOUSSCIENCETEACHING©2015
ChangesinStudent-ReportedTalkBehaviors
inOneTeacher'sClassoverTime
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Nov-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
Forwhom?
Ouranalysisdidnotidentifywhetherstudentscamefromparticulargroups.However,theclassstudiedwasone
withmanystrugglingstudents,andanecdotalevidencesuggestedsomepositivechangesforstudents.Additional
datacollectionovertimecanhelpelucidatethisfurther.
Underwhatconditions?
Theconditionsforthesechangeswereverycomplexandincludedchangesinteacherpresentationofwork,very
pointedactivitiestohelpfocusstudentsonapplyingparticularevidencetoexplanationstheywereconstructing,
andsubstantialevolutionofclaim/evidence/reasoningandotherstructuredwritingsheets.Exitticketswerenot
usedeverytimebutwereanalyzedatafewpoints.
Wonderingsandnextsteps
Teacherscontinuedtowonderhowtofurtherdeepenstudentsabilitytoreasonwithevidenceandcontinuedto
explorecouplingthetalkandwrittenprotocolsaswellaswaysofhelpingstudentsrecognizeanddiscussevidence.
Teachersseemedtoconvergeontheirwonderingabouthowtogetstudentstobemoreexplicitabouttheir
reasoningandaboutchangesotherthanthetalkprotocolitselfthatcouldsupportthis.
16|AMBITIOUSSCIENCETEACHING©2015
MakingconnectionstoDanielsonandNGSS
AlthoughequitablesciencetalkasapracticeitselfisnotcalledoutspecificallyintheDanielsonFrameworkorin
theNextGenerationScienceStandards(NGSS),itrelatestomanyoftheprinciplesandpracticesrepresentedin
both.Followingaresomepointsofrelevance/overlap.Thisisnotacomprehensivesetofconnections;rather,it
highlightssomeofthemostrelevantconnections.
CONNECTIONSTODANIELSONFRAMEWORK
Danielson
Domain
Relevant
quotes
from
domain
description
3a:Communicatingwith
Students
"[Teachers]provideclear
directionsforclassroom
activities,sothatstudents
knowwhatitisthattheyare
todo."
"Teacherpresentscomplex
conceptsinwaysthatprovide
scaffoldingandaccessto
students."
"Studentsareclearaboutwhat
theyareexpectedtododuring
alesson,particularlyifthey
areworkingindependentlyor
withclassmates,without
directteachersupervision."
"Theteacher...andexplains
proceduresanddirections
clearly."
"...thedirectionsand
proceduresareclearand
anticipatepossiblestudent
misunderstanding;"
Examples
ofwhat
thismay
looklikein
the
classroom
Protocolonpostertoprovide
directionsforhowtodo
structuredtalk
Teachermodelstheprotocol
forstudents
Thepurposeofthestructured
talkisexplainedtostudents
3b:UsingQuestioningandDiscussion
Techniques
"…itisimportantthatquestioningand
discussionareusedastechniquestodeepen
studentunderstanding."
"Goodteachersusedivergentand
convergentquestions,framedinsuchaway
thattheyinvitestudentstoformulate
hypotheses,makeconnections,orchallenge
previouslyheldviews."
"Highqualityquestionsencouragestudents
tomakeconnectionsamongconceptsor
eventspreviouslybelievedtobeunrelated,
andarriveatnewunderstandingsofcomplex
material."
"Effectiveteachersalsoposequestionsfor
whichtheydonotknowtheanswers."
"Inorderforstudentstoformulatehigh-level
questions,theymusthavelearnedhowtodo
so."
"...[teacher]asksthestudentsquestions
designedtopromotethinkingand
understanding."
"Teacherusesopen-endedquestions,
invitingstudentstothinkand/oroffer
multiplepossibleanswers."
"discussionsenablestudentstotalktoone
anotherwithoutongoingmediationbythe
teacher."
Studentsaregivenadequatequiettimeto
processtheirideaspriortodoingthe
structuredtalk
Studentsareaskedtodosomethingwiththe
twoideasshared-compare/contrast,
agree/disagree,findevidenceto
support/refute
Studentsuseavarietyofquestions(perhaps
providedbyteacher)tosustainthe
conversationand/ortogodeeper(increase
therigor)
17|AMBITIOUSSCIENCETEACHING©2015
3c:EngagingStudentsin
Learning
"...[students]areengagedin
discussing,debating,
answering‘whatif?’
questions,discovering
patterns,andthelike."
"Thebestevidencefor
studentengagementiswhat
studentsaresayinganddoing
asaconsequenceofwhatthe
teacherdoes,orhasdone,or
hasplanned."
"Keepingthingsmoving,
withinawell-defined
structure,isoneofthemarks
ofanexperiencedteacher."
"Learningtaskshavemultiple
correctresponsesor
approachesand/ordemand
higher-orderthinking."
"Virtuallyallstudentsare
intellectuallyengagedin
challengingcontentthrough
well-designedlearningtasks
andsuitablescaffoldingbythe
teacherandfullyalignedwith
theinstructionaloutcomes."
Studentsuseoptionsto
sustaintheconversationif
"finished"suchasaskingeach
othermorequestions,
engagingothergroupsin
similarconversations,writing
newideasdown
Allstudentsareexpectedto
participateandheld
accountable
CONNECTIONSTONGSSPRACTICES
NGSSPractice
1.Askingquestions(forscience)
anddefiningproblems(for
engineering)
6.Constructingexplanations
(forscience)anddesigning
solutions(forengineering)
7.Engaginginargumentfrom
evidence
8.Obtaining,evaluating,and
communicatinginformation
RelevantQuotesfromPracticeDescription
"Studentsatanygradelevelshouldbeabletoaskquestionsofeachotheraboutthetexts
theyread,thefeaturesofthephenomenatheyobserve,andtheconclusionstheydraw
fromtheirmodelsorscientificinvestigations."
"Scientificquestionsaredistinguishedfromothertypesofquestionsinthattheanswerslie
inexplanationssupportedbyempiricalevidence,includingevidencegatheredbyothersor
throughinvestigation."
"Askingquestionsanddefiningproblemsalsoinvolvesaskingquestionsaboutdata,claims
thataremade,andproposeddesigns."
"Anexplanationincludesaclaimthatrelateshowavariableorvariablesrelatetoanother
variableorasetofvariables.Aclaimisoftenmadeinresponsetoaquestionandinthe
processofansweringthequestion,scientistsoftendesigninvestigationstogeneratedata."
"...studentsshouldarguefortheexplanationstheyconstruct,defendtheirinterpretationsof
theassociateddata,andadvocateforthedesignstheypropose..."
"Whetherinvestigatingaphenomenon,testingadesign,orconstructingamodeltoprovide
amechanismforanexplanation,studentsareexpectedtouseargumentationtolistento,
compare,andevaluatecompetingideasandmethodsbasedontheirmerits."
"Communicatinginformation,evidence,andideascanbedoneinmultipleways:using
tables,diagrams,graphs,models,interactivedisplays,andequationsaswellasorally,in
writing,andthroughextendeddiscussions."
18|AMBITIOUSSCIENCETEACHING©2015